2006-878-Minutes for Meeting February 22,2006 Recorded 9/5/2006NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS COUNTY OFFICIAL P
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL p9/05/2006 02:37;24 PM
111111111 loll 11111111111 will oil 2MG-818
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded to correct [give reason]
previously recorded in Book
or as Fee Number
and Page
G
tam
C :3
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke and Bev Clarno; and, for a portion of
the meeting by conference call (for item #19), Commissioner Michael M. Daly.
Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead and Mark
Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Dan Despotopulos and Kathy Herringer, Fair & Expo
Center; Susan Ross and Judith Ure, Commissioners' Office; George Kolb and
Michael Barta, Road Department; Sue Brewster and Rebecca Hallin, Sheriff's
Office; Tom Anderson, Catherine Morrow, Paul Blikstad, Kevin Harrison, Will
Groves, Steve Jorgensen and Ed Pecoraro, Community Development; media
representatives Lily Raff, Christopher Stollar and Chris Barker of the Bulletin, and
Barney Lerten of News Channel 21, and twenty other citizens.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
At Commissioner Luke's request, Christopher Stollar of Eugene was introduced
by Lily Raff of the Bulletin; he is a new reporter handling mostly southern
Deschutes County.
None other was offered.
2. Before the Board was the Reading and Consideration of Adoption of a
Proclamation Declaring February 27 through March 5 Peace Corps Week
in Deschutes County.
Chair Luke read the Proclamation to the audience, and observed that he has
known several individuals who served in the Peace Corps over the years.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 1 of 13 Pages
CLARNO: Move adoption of the Proclamation.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
3. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of a Notice of
Intent to Award Contract for the Sagebrush Arena Cover.
Dan Despotopulos gave an overview of the bidding process. (A copy of the
information is attached as Exhibit B.) He said that most of the small
contractors did not bid, contrary to hearsay. The apparent low bid amount is
somewhat over the original estimate.
CLARNO: Move Chair signature of the notice of intent to award letter.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of a Notice of
Intent to Award Letter for Public Works Improvement in La Pine
Industrial Park.
Susan Ross explained that Moore Excavation is the low bidder on the work to
be done. The cost was estimated at $1.2 million, but the bid is lower than the
estimate in this case.
CLARNO: Move Chair signature of the notice of intent to award letter.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2006-
075, Deed of Dedication and Acceptance of the Deed of Dedication for Pam
Lane located in Wickiup Junction, La Pine.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 2 of 13 Pages
George Kolb gave an overview of the item. The property is County-owned and
the property needs to be dedicated so that another property owner will have
access in order to be able to build.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2006-
076, Acceptance of Deed for Pam Lane located in Wickiup Junction, La
Pine.
George Kolb said that this property was dedicated in 1978 but the deed was
never formally accepted by the County.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-
017, Initiating proceedings for the Choctaw Road L.I.D.
Mike Barta, a new employee of the Road Department, gave a brief overview of
the Resolution. He said this forms the Local Improvement District, which starts
the process; a vote of the property owners will follow.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2006-
072, Service Agreement for Impound and Abandoned Vehicle Tows.
Rebecca Hallin and Sue Brewster explained the document.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 3 of 13 Pages
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-035,
Changing the Name of a Portion of NW Parkey Drive to NW Rainbow
Road.
Ed Pecoraro said that this road is located in the Deschutes County portion of
Crooked River Ranch, and will make the road name consistent.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO
LUKE:
Aye.
Chair votes yes.
10. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2006-
073, Agreement between Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
and Deschutes County concerning Special Transportation Fund (STF)
Formula Grant Distribution.
Judith Ure stated that this agreement allows the County to distribute special
transportation funds that provide services to handicapped and senior citizens.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
11. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-
018, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Sheriff's
Office Fund (Computer Software).
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 4 of 13 Pages
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
12. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-051,
Accepting Petition and Setting Date for Public Hearing for the Black Butte
Ranch Association Annexation into Black Butte Ranch Service District.
Laurie Craghead stated that this is a one property annexation into the District.
This sets the hearing for March 22.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
13. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-052,
Accepting Petition and Setting Date for Public Hearing for the Pensco
Trust Company Annexation into Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection
District #2.
Laurie Craghead explained that this is a single property annexation into the
District. This sets the hearing for March 22.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
14. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Approval of
Resolution No. 2006-010, Adopting a Local System Development Charge
(SDC) for Traffic Signals in La Pine.
Chair Luke read the opening statement for the public hearing. (A copy is
attached as Exhibit C.)
Regarding bias, prejudgment or personal interest, the Commissioners had none
to disclose. No challenges were offered by the public.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 5 of 13 Pages
Steve Jorgensen referred to an oversized map of the area affected and explained
the reasons for the SDC. He said he has not received any written statements
from the building industry or local Realtors, and no opposition was voiced by
the La Pine Chamber of Commerce. The media has covered this issue as well.
The proposal is to examine a population-based method to determine growth and
the rate for the need for signals. It has been determined that one will be needed
at Huntington Road at Burgess Road, one at 1St Street at Huntington, 1 st Street at
Highway 97, and Finley Butte Road at Highway 97. Funding has come from
the Senior Center, the School District and various businesses, including those in
the La Pine Industrial Park, that impact traffic in the area. He hopes that ODOT
will also contribute to the signals needed at Highway 97.
The difference between this SDC and SDC's the cities impose is that this SDC
is area-specific and will retire after the signals have been installed. The entities
paying the SDC in this case will know exactly where the funds are going.
Laurie Craghead added that statute does provide for regional SDC's, but the
capital improvement plan is just focusing on these specific improvements.
Commissioner Clarno said the media asked how the users were determined.
Mr. Jorgensen replied that there are few that fall in the boundaries and they
would be highly impacted. Using a population base, and a reasonable
distribution of the trips through the intersections, the impact is spread out over a
larger area and the costs will be paid sooner. The benefit is to all of the people
in the area who use the intersections.
Chair Luke opened the public hearing at this time.
Rose Alsbury, the new Executive Director of the La Pine Chamber of
Commerce, said that some questions have come to them from the public about
the issue. There is good support for the stop lights, but not everyone seems to
be informed about SDC's.
She thought the process was being handled too quickly. She also asked if the
formula and cost covers the rerouting of Morrison. She added that she doesn't
understand why the SDC's are now being implemented when they weren't
previously implemented in other parts of the County, and asked why there
aren't SDC's in place for other areas of the County.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 6 of 13 Pages
Commissioner Luke said that there has to be a project list submitted and the
SDC's are determined from that. It is a very complex situation, and the cities
have gone through a lot of work to establish SDC's. In most instances the
County doesn't have the infrastructure concerns that the cities do, other than
roads. SDC's have been discussed at various times, and it was decided they
were needed in this case because there is no enough funding available to
improve these intersections.
Commissioner Luke stated that he wouldn't mind leaving the hearing open for a
while so that articles can be written for the Newberry Eagle and other local
publications, in order to reach any citizens who are not involved in the Chamber
of Commerce or other groups, or who don't read the Bulletin. Commissioner
Clarno agreed.
Steve Jorgensen said that he received one call from someone who wasn't
necessarily opposed to the SDC's, but wanted the stop signs placed in another
location. The Morrison Road intersection is being evaluated. To do a County-
wide evaluation would be a long process, but if the Commissioners so direct, it
can be addressed. He added that La Pine is one of the fastest growing areas of
the County and the signals are needed because of the density of the area, which
is different than other parts of the County.
Andy High of the Central Oregon Builders' Association said they recognize the
need and will not oppose the SDC's. He stated that they appreciate the
methodology being kept fairly simple, and the fact there is a sunset date for the
SDC's.
Being no further testimony offered, Chair Luke left the record open until 5:00
p.m. on Friday, March 10 for the submission of written testimony, and the issue
will be addressed again by the Board on Wednesday, March 22.
15. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Ordinances No. 2006-004 and
2006-005, Adopting Requirements for Traffic Impact Studies for Certain
Land Use Applications.
Chair Luke read the opening statement for this Ordinance. (A copy is attached
as Exhibit D.)
Regarding bias, prejudgment or personal interest, the Commissioners had none
to disclose. No challenges were offered by the public.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 7 of 13 Pages
Steve Jorgensen said that this issue has been discussed various times over the
years, and often the documents of other jurisdictions have been referenced.
This is an awkward process and therefore a document has been drafted for
Deschutes County. He said there have been some changes to the Ordinances so
the hearing should probably be continued.
Commissioner Luke stated these are the same types of requirements used by the
State and others.
Chair Luke opened the public hearing at this time. No testimony was offered.
Laurie Craghead added that the changes do not affect the substance of the
Ordinances, and a week should be adequate time for this work to be completed.
Chair Luke continued the hearing to the Board meeting on March 1.
Copies of the opening statement were distributed to the audience. Neither
Commissioner had Commissioners Chair Luke asked if anyone in the audience
wished to bring up any challenges to the Commissioners' qualifications to hear
the Measure 37 claims before them today. No one responded
16. Before the Board was a Hearing on Order No. 2006-008, a Measure 37
Claim, File No. M37-05-62 (Claimant: Lantz).
Tom Anderson explained that the property, located at 1827 Smith Rock Way, is
approximately 66 acres, consisting of two parcels on either side of the road.
The property is zoned EFU, and the claimant wishes to subdivide it into smaller
parcels of two to eight acres each.
The amount of damages claim is $1.5 million. The property was originally
acquired by the father of the claimant in 1911, and was passed on to the applicant
in January 1969. It has been in continuous ownership since then. The Order
would establish a review date of January 1969 for any land use regulations.
Chair Luke opened the hearing. There was no testimony offered for or against
the application, so the hearing was closed.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 8 of 13 Pages
17. Before the Board was a Hearing on Order No. 2006-038, a Measure 37
Claim, File No. M37-05-67 (Claimant: Sellers).
Tom Anderson said that this claim is from Dick and Helen Sellers of 64061 N
Highway 97. They own approximately 9.5 acres zoned MUA-10 that is located
north of Bend near Bowery Lane. The claimants wish to subdivide the property
into five residential lots.
The amount of damages claimed is $270,000. They acquired the property in
March 1965, and in 2004 it was transferred into a revocable trust, which doesn't
change the ownership string. The date of review regarding land use regulations
would be 1965.
Chair Luke opened the hearing. Michael McGee, an attorney representing the
Sellers, had nothing to add and accepted the Order as written on behalf of the
Sellers. No other testimony was offered, so the hearing was closed.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
18. Before the Board was Discussion and a Possible Decision on Applications
by 4-11 Equipment for a Plan Amendment/Zone Change from EFU to
Surface Mining in Millican.
Commissioner Luke stated that because Commissioner Daly could not be
present today and wanted it delayed for a week. Laurie Craghead said there is
no problem voiced by the applicant's attorney in delaying the decision. A
decision will be listed on the Wednesday, March 1 Board meeting agenda.
Commissioner Luke said that in the last public hearing an issue was brought up
regarding lighting. He said that if it is improved, he wanted CDD to think about
how to reduce the impact from lighting at the site. He knows there needs to be
lighting for safety and security, but would appreciate a possible condition of
approval that would minimize the impacts of lighting.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 9 of 13 Pages
19. Before the Board was Discussion and a Possible Decision of an Appeal of the
Hearings Officer's Decision Denying an Accessory Structure on a Parcel in
the Forest Use (F-1) Zone, File No. A-05-12, (Applicant: Dieter Mees).
Commissioner Daly joined the meeting via conference call at this time. Will
Groves and Laurie Craghead came before the Board.
Commissioner Luke read a statement to the audience. (A copy is attached as
Exhibit E.) Commissioner Daly said that he concurs with Commissioner
Luke's statement. Commissioner Clarno also agreed.
CLARNO: Move to direct staff to work with applicant's attorney to draft a
decision based on the Board's decision, and that the applicant's
attorney will extend the 150-day deadline.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
20. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Letters Appointing
Dan Rife and Reappointing Dennis Luke and Kyle Gorman to the Board of
the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council through February 28, 2009.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
21. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Letters Appointing
members of the Deschutes County Budget Committee to the 9-1-1
Executive Committee Budget Committee: Lee Smith, through December
31, 2006; Larry Kimmel, through December 31, 2007; and Lauri Miller,
through December 31, 2008.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 10 of 13 Pages
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
22. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon
Liquor Control License Application for Tumalo Tavern.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
23. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable
Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $11,172.71
(for two weeks).
CLARNO: Move approval, subject to review.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
24. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the
Amount of $7,207.54 (for two weeks).
CLARNO: Move approval, subject to review.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 11 of 13 Pages
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
25. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $886,539.21 (for
two weeks).
CLARNO: Move approval, subject to review.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
26. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda.
A. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon
Liquor Control License Application for the Sugar Pine Cafe, La Pine.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
B. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2006-
057, a Services Agreement for Evidence Towing for the Sheriffs Office.
Sue Brewster explained that this agreement covers only evidence towing
services within the Sheriff's Office area.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 12 of 13 Pages
DATED this 22°d Day of February 2006 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
enn's R. Luke, Chair
D.
ATTEST:
(f r
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A: Sign-in sheet (1 page)
Bev Clafrno, Vice Chair
Michael M. Daly, mmissioner
Exhibit B: Documents regarding the Sagebrush Arena cover bid process (1 page)
Exhibit C: Opening statement regarding a proposed system development charge
in La Pine (1 page)
Exhibit D: Preliminary statement regarding Ordinances 2006-004 and 2006-006
regarding traffic impact studies (1 page)
Exhibit E: Commissioner Luke's statement regarding the Dieter Mees appeal (1
page)
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Page 13 of 13 Pages
N
LLO
I-
C..
00
C_
~i
~y
L
r+
O
w
C
7
N
N
A
v
n.
THE SIMPLE SHEET
There were two(2) bids received for the Sagebrush Arena Cover:
1. Kirby Nagelhout Construction Company of Bend, Or.
2. Colamette Construction Company of Sherwood, Or.
Kirby Nagelhout Construction Company was the low bidder.
Bids:
Kirby Nagelhout
Building A - $590,244.60
B - $114,085.89
C - $61,971.83
Total - $766,302.32
Colamette Construction
Building A - $686,473.00
B - $147,737.00
C -included in above
Total - $834,210.00
Kirby Nagelhout's overall bid was $67,907.68 less than Colamette Construction
Exhibit
Page J of
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE
THE DESCHUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
This is a public hearing on Resolution 2006-010 to adopt a transportation
system development charge (SDC) methodology and rate. The SDC will only
be applicable to new development and will contribute towards the installation
cost of four (4) future traffic signals in the La Pine area.
The Board will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the
testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The
Board may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to
a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time.
The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a repot
on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to
present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide
the Board with a copy of written testimony.
Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's
discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed.
However, if any person wishes ask a question of another person during that
person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being
recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of
the person testifying.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, any party may challenge the
qualifications of any Board for bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This
challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts.
Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify him or
herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their
capacity to hear and decide this issue.
At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth any information that
may be perceived as bias, prejudgment, or personal interest?
I will accept any challenges from the public now.
(Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT
CADocuments and Settings\13onnie8\Locai Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK38\SDC Opening Statement
Legislative.doc
Exhibit
Page of %
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS
BEFORE THE DESCHUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
This is a public hearing on Ordinances 2006-004 and 2006-005. The County
file number is TA 05-06. This is an amendment to DCC Section 17.16,
"Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plans and Master Development Plans",
(adding Section 17.16.115) and also amending DCC Section 18.124, "Site Plan
Review"; to provide a policy for the requirement of Traffic Impact Studies.
The Board will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the
testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The
Board may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to
a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time.
The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report
on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to
present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide
the Board with a copy of written testimony.
Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's
discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed.
However, if any person wishes ask a question of another person during that
person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being
recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of
the person testifying.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, any party may challenge the
qualifications of any Board for bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This
challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts.
Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify him or
herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their
capacity to hear and decide this issue.
At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth any information that
may be perceived as bias, prejudgment, or personal interest?
I will accept any challenges from the public now.
(Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT
CADocuments and Settings\BonnieB\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK38\TIS Opening Statement
Legislative.doc
Exhibit 1 >
Page of 1
DIETER MEES
I find that the forest equipment storage structure that is before us is a
use allowed outright subject only to the County's fire siting standards.
Deschutes County Code 18.36.020 allows for accessory uses to
forest operations or forest practices. The applicant has a forest plan
in place that has been approved by the Oregon Department of
Forestry demonstrating that actual forest operations and practices are
taking place on the subject property. Since the storage shed will
house equipment used for those forest operations and practices and
for forest fire suppression and the forest plan is in place for the
subject property, the storage shed is an accessory use to those forest
operations and practices described in the plan.
Opponents have argued that only temporary on-site structures that
are auxiliary to a particular forest operation are structures allowed
outright in the F-1 zone. Granted, the storage shed will be permanent
when the Code and statutes specifically allow the temporary auxiliary
structures. The County Code's definition in 18.04.030 of "auxiliary,"
however, appears to contemplate a commercial forest operation
whereby an area of forest is planted and cleared at harvest time. The
proposed use is different because the forest plan indicates that the
forest operation will be ongoing maintenance and improvement of the
property for forestry. Thus, the structure is an accessory use to the
forest operations but could qualify as a temporary on-site structure
necessitating a more solid construction because of the ongoing
nature of the particular forest practice on this property.
In light of this finding, I propose the storage shed be determined to be
an accessory use and a temporary on-site use on the condition that
the shed be removed at the conclusion of the forest operation
requiring its use as outlined in the forest plan.
Exhibit
Page j of 1